Anonymized Summary of Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion concerns two defendants, identified here as Appellant 1 and Appellant 2, who were tried jointly at The Crown Court and convicted of serious offences arising out of a violent incident on 16 September 2023. On 28 March 2024 both appellants were convicted before Judge Foster: Appellant 1 was convicted of murder and section 18 wounding and had previously pleaded guilty to possession of a bladed article and being concerned in the supply of Class A drugs; Appellant 2 was convicted of murder, section 18 wounding and possession of a bladed article and had previously pleaded guilty to being concerned in the supply of Class A and Class B drugs.

On 17 May 2024 Appellant 1 was ordered detained during His Majesty's pleasure with a minimum term of 19 years and 127 days; Appellant 2 was ordered detained during His Majesty's pleasure with a minimum term of 17 years and 133 days. Appellant 1 appealed against conviction on one ground arising from the admission of specific bad character evidence concerning large-scale purchases of knives from Company A. Appellant 2 was granted leave to appeal on one ground only: the judge's refusal of his submission of no case to answer at the close of the prosecution case.

The factual background, as found by the jury and described in the trial evidence, was that two individuals (the deceased and another victim) went to procure drugs from a meeting arranged via a drugs line. Appellant 1 and Appellant 2 attended the arranged meeting acting as drug runners. A confrontation occurred in a stairwell behind a retail store. The deceased and the other victim were each armed with small knives; Appellant 1 carried a large bayonet-style machete concealed in a sheath. An attempt by the deceased to rob the appellants led to Appellant 1 using his larger weapon, stabbing the deceased and the other victim. The deceased died at the scene; the other victim sustained serious injuries and survived. CCTV placed the parties at and leaving the scene; cell-site and phone-call evidence showed close contact between the two appellants before and after the incident. Following investigation it was discovered that Appellant 1 had made multiple orders of knives through delivery orders made using a false account in a family member's name; two knives had been delivered just days before the incident. Both appellants were arrested and made no comment in interview. The jury rejected Appellant 1's self-defence case and found Appellant 2 had intentionally encouraged or assisted Appellant 1.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the judge erred in admitting evidence of Appellant 1's prior purchases of a large quantity of knives from Company A as bad character evidence under section 101(1)(d) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and, if wrongly admitted, whether that admission rendered the conviction unsafe.
2. Whether the judge erred in refusing Appellant 2's submission of no case to answer at the close of the prosecution case, applying the Galbraith test and subsequent authorities in respect of circumstantial evidence and inferences.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant 1's Arguments (as advanced by Attorney Stone)

• The purchase of the 63 knives was irrelevant to any important matter in issue because Appellant 1 had already pleaded guilty to possession of a bladed article and to the drug offences; the additional evidence added nothing relevant and was instead highly prejudicial.
• The evidence of those additional purchases amounted to material that could only operate to prejudice the jury and should have been excluded under section 101(3) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
• While concession was made that an attack on another party's character might permit some evidence under section 101(1)(g), the overarching contention was the substantial prejudice of the particular evidence of the 63 purchases.

Prosecution Arguments Regarding Appellant 1 (as advanced by Attorney Dennis)

• The ordering of the 63 knives was relevant to why Appellant 1 was carrying the large knife at the time of the stabbing: it spoke directly to state of mind, intention and the issue of self-defence.
• The jury needed to see the full contextual picture, including Appellant 1's habitual ordering and carrying of large knives, particularly given the prosecution's portrayal of a drugs context in which such weapons were used offensively.
• It would be misleading and artificial to omit that evidence when the prosecution had put the victims' bad character before the jury.

Appellant 2's Arguments (as advanced by Attorney Borrelli)

• The sequence of events was critical: the early comment by Appellant 2 to "let him have it" prompted Appellant 1 to throw the drugs down and was made when the deceased had his knife out; the subsequent stabbings were acts of revenge by Appellant 1 and could not properly be connected to Appellant 2.
• The principal witness for the prosecution (the surviving victim) was a "flawed individual" and her evidence should not have been given the weight attributed to it; the judge should have given greater weight to the earlier comment and less to statements allegedly made after the stabbings.
• On those bases the submission of no case to answer should have been upheld because, even taking the prosecution case at its highest, the connection between Appellant 2 and the fatal outcome was insufficient for a reasonable jury to be sure of guilt.

Prosecution Arguments Regarding Appellant 2 (as advanced by Attorney Dennis)

• There was sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that Appellant 2 was in joint possession of the large knife and that he intentionally encouraged or assisted Appellant 1: the evidence included contemporaneous conduct, close phone contact and cell-site proximity, prior possession of a large machete, and contemporaneous words and conduct at the scene.
• The alleged attacks on the credibility of the surviving victim were matters for the jury; her initial, unchallenged descriptions were part of the evidence supporting the prosecution's inferences about Appellant 2's role.
• The comments made by Appellant 2 subsequent to the stabbings, including "lay her down as well", could properly be seen as active encouragement rather than commentary after the event.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court divided its analysis between the two central contested matters: (i) the admissibility of Appellant 1's extensive knife purchases as bad character evidence; and (ii) whether there was a case for Appellant 2 to answer.

Admissibility of Appellant 1's Knife Purchases

1. Statutory framework: The court set out the statutory test under sections 101(1)(d) and 103(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and the exclusionary safeguard in section 101(3), as explained in R v Watson and related authorities. Evidence is admissible if relevant to an important matter in issue; it must be excluded if its admission would adversely affect the fairness of the proceedings.
2. Judge's original ruling: The trial judge concluded the delivery timing (two knives delivered just before the offence), the physical fit of the recovered sheath, and the volume and nature of the earlier purchases were relevant to Appellant 1's state of mind, purpose in possessing a large weapon and to the self-defence issue. The judge considered prejudice and ruled the evidence did not render the trial unfair (including measures such as agreed facts and no photographs).
3. Court of Appeal's assessment: The appellate court agreed that the evidence of large-scale procurement demonstrated Appellant 1's knowledge of and familiarity with large, dangerous bladed weapons, which was plainly relevant to self-defence: it made it less likely that he acted defensively and more likely that he was using an offensive weapon offensively.
4. Prejudice vs relevance: While the court acknowledged the prejudicial character of bad-character evidence, it accepted the judge's view that the evidence formed part of the necessary context (rather than merely bolstering a weak case) and that protective measures limited unfairness. The jury was properly directed not to convict solely on bad character evidence.
5. Safety of conviction: Even on the alternative assumption that the evidence should not have been admitted, the court held the conviction would not be unsafe because strong eyewitness accounts of the stabbings (the surviving victim and Witness A) were wholly inconsistent with self-defence and would, on their own, support the jury's verdict.

No Case to Answer Submission for Appellant 2

1. Legal standard applied: The court applied the Galbraith test as elaborated in subsequent authorities (notably Goddard, Masih and Mosicki). The question was whether, taking the prosecution evidence at its highest, a reasonable jury properly directed could be sure of guilt.
2. Evidence summary relied upon by the judge: The trial judge identified twelve cumulative strands of evidence (presence at scene; propensity to possess knives; joint drug dealing and pattern of operation; proximity during stabbings; contemporaneous words alleged to encourage violence; flight from the scene; phone calls; dropped phones; messages to associates; no-comment interviews; and the surviving victim's unchallenged evidence describing the interaction between the two defendants).
3. Evaluation of sequence and statements: The court considered the sequence of events and the submissions that an early remark by Appellant 2 ("let him have it") was made before the stabbing and therefore could not connect to the later fatal blows. The court rejected the argument that this early comment precluded an inference of guilt because (a) events did not end with that remark, (b) Appellant 1 thereafter produced a large knife and Appellant 2 did not intervene or discourage the violence, and (c) Appellant 2 made a further comment after repeated stabbing ("lay her down as well") that the jury could properly treat as active encouragement.
4. Cumulative and circumstantial reasoning: The court emphasised that circumstantial evidence works cumulatively. Close cell-site and phone contact, prior possession or association with large knives, contemporaneous conduct and words, and the surviving victim's account, taken together, could permit a reasonable jury to infer Appellant 2's guilt to the requisite standard.
5. Conclusion on no-case point: Given the cumulative evidence and the permissible inferences, the judge was correct to refuse the submission of no case to answer; it was for the jury to assess weight and credibility.

Holding and Implications

Core Rulings:

• Appellant 1's appeal against conviction is dismissed. The admission of the evidence concerning the 63 knife purchases was correctly admitted as relevant to an important matter in issue (self-defence and state of mind); alternatively, even if wrongly admitted, the conviction was not rendered unsafe by that admission.
• Appellant 2's appeal against conviction is dismissed. The judge was right to refuse the submission of no case to answer; a reasonable jury could, on the cumulative circumstantial and direct evidence, be sure of Appellant 2's guilt.

Implications

Direct consequences (as stated in the opinion): the convictions and the sentences imposed on 17 May 2024 remain in effect for both appellants (detention during His Majesty's pleasure with the specified minimum terms). The court applied established statutory and common law tests governing admissibility of bad character evidence and the threshold for a no-case submission in circumstantial cases. The decision does not purport to create new legal principle beyond the application of those established tests to the facts of this case.

Note on anonymization: All personal names and identifying details in this summary have been replaced with consistent, neutral placeholders in order to comply with the instruction to anonymize personally identifiable information.